Holbrook v. Morrison

• Decision Date: 04 March 1913
• Citation: Holbrook v. Morrison, 214 Mass. 209, 100 N.E. 1111 (Mass. 1913)
• Parties: HOLBROOK et al. v. MORRISON.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

214 Mass. 209

100 N.E. 1111

HOLBROOK et al. v. MORRISON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 4, 1913

COUNSEL

Brandeis, Dunbar & Nutter, Edwd.F. McClennen, and Jacob J. Kaplan, all of Boston, for complainants.

Michl.J. Sughrue, of Boston, and John P. Manning, Jr., of Roxbury for respondent.

OPINION

MORTON J.

The complainants are dealers in real estate and own a number of lots on Wellington Hill in the Dorchester district of the city of Boston.The respondent owns a house and lot abutting on two of the lots belonging to the complainants and in close proximity to the others.She has caused to be placed on the front of her house a large sign headed with the words 'For Sale,' and concluding with the words 'Best Offer from Colored Family,' all in large letters.The first entrance onto Wellington Hill and the way prospective purchasers would take in going there is past her house.She has also caused, it is alleged, advertisements of like tenor to be inserted in the 'Boston Globe,' a newspaper of large circulation, and has threatened and is threatening to sell her house and lot to a colored family.This is a bill to restrain the respondent from maliciously interfering with the complainants' business by means of such sign and advertisements and by such threats.The bill alleges that the effect of the respondent's acts has been greatly to injure the sale of the complainants' lots and that the respondent's purpose is to injure the complainants' business, and that she has no real intention of selling her house and lot to members of the negro race.

The case was heard by a single justice and comes here on a report by him of the evidence and of a finding made by him 'that the respondent did not put up the sign for the sole purpose of selling her property. but that she did so for the purpose of annoying the complainants.'This finding was made by the single justice 'without going into the question of whether she[the respondent] was justified in having that ill feeling'; and the report concludes, 'such decree to be entered by the court as justice and equity may require.'

It appeared from the uncontradicted evidence that the threatened sale by the respondent of her house and lot to a colored family has injured and will continue to injure the business of the complainants unless prevented.We interpret the finding made by the single justice as meaning that one purpose which the respondent had in putting up the sign and in advertising her property as she did was to sell it.She also had the purpose, as he finds, of annoying the complainants.

There can be no doubt that the respondent has the right to advertise her property for sale by signs or otherwise in the usual way, and to sell it if she sees fit to a negro family even though the effect may be to impair the business of the complainants; just as, for instance, the owner of land on a hillside may cultivate it in the usual way even though the effect of the surface drainage may be to fill up his neighbor's millpond below.Middlesex Co. v McCue,149 Mass. 103, 21 N.E. 230, 14 Am. St. Rep. 402.Does the presence in the sign and advertisements of a malevolent motive quoad the complainants although they are not named, intended to annoy and in fact annoying and injuring the complainants' business by announcing in effect that the property is for sale to a colored family change what otherwise would be a legal right into an actionable wrong?It would seem clear according to our own decisions that it does not, Rideout v. Knox,148 Mass. 368, 19 N.E. 390, 2 L. R. A. 81, 12 Am. St. Rep. 560;Greenleaf v. Francis,18 Pick. 118;Walker v. Cronin,107 Mass. 555.See, also, Frazier v. Brown,12 Ohio St. 294;Chatfield v....